IMMIGRATION: WAR FRONT
The evolution of imperialist strategies against immigration in the era of the
"war to terrorism"

Facing the relationship between internal and external front, by the light of the
present developments of this matter, we think itīs necessary to deepen what is
happening today towards immigration.
If they werenīt enough the black lists and the changes to the Right of Asylum in
a more and more limiting way, the rakings and " extra-judicial expulsions" of "unwanted"
immigrants, the debate about immigration to a European level, as yet stated in
the previous issue of "Senza Censura", tends more and more to be part of the
present strategy of "war to terrorism", or better to be part of the management
of contradictions deriving from this war itself.
So we have not to consider casual (beyond the specific roles of the ministers
involved in the meetings preceding the European Council on 5th November, where
it will be defined the path to follow) that the immigration problem is faced
together with that of "terrorism".
"Itīs necessary to eliminate the grey zone, the area of sympathizers which gives
space to terrorism. The European policy on expulsions has got this aim..... The
expulsion for national safety is the only instrument which unites the necessity
of repression with the respect for warranties, because it allows to hit the area
of adjacency..."
These words belong to the Public Minister Stefano Dambruoso, well-known
magistrate which has leaded the greater failed inquiries which carried to arrest
many immigrants; on these inquiries Mr. Dambruoso has built his future as ONUīs
consultant on anti-terrorism policies, together with some inquiries on many
comrades, included some members of our editorial staff.
He will be surely satisfied, at least in part, by the results of the G5 held in
Florence on 17th and 18th October. In fact, the 5 Ministers of the Interiors
decided to define on European level a common procedure to uniform national
legislations about administrative expulsions of people suspected to belong to "terrorist
organizations".
During that meeting, as reported by the whole medias, were defined the
repressive strategy towards immigration and "terrorism".
Defining a repressive structure on European level, has been started the creation
of a Committee for Internal Safety which will have a central role to define the
next strategies in communitarian key, the sharing and filing of information to
whom the single national structures will enter, with Europol as operative brain.
Yet previously was activated the information exchange between EU and USA about
the data on aerial passengers (PNR- Passenger Name Records), and another passage
is done inserting biometric data into passports.
Referring to the present USA standards, the European Antiterrorism Coordinator
Gijs De Vries stated that the passportsī data can be read form more than 20
meters without presenting the paper itself.
The exigency to insert the biometric data on passports was widely felt by the
European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, Vittorino, who thinks to be
important to extend this decision even to the new member countries, and to the
future ones, inviting also the USA to grant these the same treatment of free
circulation.
In a document by the European Commission they state that, for a full use of
these new identification systems, it has to be fully used the Visa Information
System (VIS)and the new Schengen Information System (SISII).
In that document itself they are faced the basic lines on which it will be
defined the European strategy about immigration and bordersī safety.
Clearly, the enlargement gives the European bourgeoisie other problems about
bordersī safety. It will be created a new information system (SISII) in which
the new countries will be integrated.
In short-medium term will have to be "banned" the internal borders between these
and the EU but, as provided by the adhesion treaties, it will have to be adopted
a common strategies to manage the external borders. In this sense it has to be
ensured the action of the External Border Agency and it is taken into
consideration the hypothesis to create a European Border Corps which looks after
the bordersī safety. The document goes on stating that the future result of the
management of immigration will depend on the capacity to oppose the "clandestine
immigration". In that sense the new Constitutional Treaty will face also the
question of repatriation and readmissions.
In communitarian key the immigration problem, beyond its placement into the "war
to terrorism", is part of the so-called "European Neighbourhood Policy" and in
its present evolution of the "European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument".
In accordance with some documents with regards to this matter, the bilateral
agreements are not seen homogeneously among European countries as resolution or
instruments to reduce immigration.
In accordance with some official reports it didnīt take place the prospected
moving of the "clandestine" solution of the immigrant will towards a legal
dimension, turning to legal ways managed by the statesī representative offices.
Opposite opinion towards the agreements with third countries not directly
belonging to the EU. With these countries were fundamental the operations of
police cooperation even without agreements for the "readmission". The different
"incentives" towards "collaborators" are represented by technical support,
police cooperation, training of border police, furnishing of military material
necessary to prevent illegal migrations. Not with all the third countries were
drawn up agreements for repatriation, even if the further development in the
Euro-Mediterranean dimension of the legislation on immigration yet gave its
results. A further development towards a positive outcome could be made easier
using economic and financial incentives, through the communitarian financing
projects for third countries (Tacis, Meda, Eneas).
I)n the middle of this year took place the annual meeting of the C4 (see the
square) about the Iraqi warīs consequences in the Mediterranean, in particular
related with the risk of immigration from south to north. The condition they are
going to face is represented by the fact that "...Europe lives a political
tension caused by wide immigrant masses legally or illegally coming inside.
Sometimes this problem is considered inevitable, more often itīs considered a
problem for internal and external safety" and that "...as criminal activity,
besides, the clandestine immigration is no more a national prerogative, but it
involves an international cooperation to analyze the complex nature of
clandestine immigration, finding different ways to prevent it". The document
underlines that "using clandestine labour is of use to support economic systems
and enterprises, sometimes partially reliable and competitive, thanks to low
costs. In some countries, for example, clandestine people are used as low cost
labour in agriculture and social-family assistance and in prostitution.
Clandestine immigration can be considered the ideal labour source extremely
flexible and cheap".
So we have not to underestimate, beyond the necessity to stop the development of
contradictions in the Mediterranean which generate a more and more negative
image of Europe and the West for those peoples which need to emigrate, the
creation of "Detention Camps" directly in the transit countries.
Beyond some disagreements emerged during the G5 meeting in Florence, they
unanimously think that the request to enter a country can be accepted or not. We
can presume that anyway these structures will be built.
The real intention is to shift to the transit countries the "politic and image
charge" of detention camps, because they should have the interest to be not
departure and death places for immigration towards EU.
Some critic observers think that the creation of camps in African countries is
linked to the policy of "Safe States", about which the EU countries split up,
because they want to keep their national autonomy in the management of
immigration, that is the management of internal political contradictions (and
then the approval), which could derive from EUīs political choices about this
matter.
The definition "Safe country of origin" tends to classify some countries among
those from which the requester comes for which the asylum request is considered
"unfounded". This decision is taken supposing that in those countries civil
rights and ideological freedom are "safeguarded". But these concepts seem faint,
in a scenery of global war to "terrorism".
Instead itīs clear the other side of the medal represented by the immediate
repatriation or removal from EUīs borders of the requester coming from one of
these countries. This will favour the creation of camps for repatriated people.
Not very different from what we have seen during these weeks into detention
camps yet existing in Libya.
This has to be faced inside the clash between Imperialist Bourgeoisie and
Metropolitan Proletariat. In particular considering how this fully answers to
the concept "that terrorists will not have a place to hide themselves".
The international war campaign has granted a wide autonomy to internal
repression, has legitimated the worsening of internal law on terrorism, has
allowed a wider space to "extra-judicial" and territorial activity in
suppressing revolutionary people, and also immigrants and suspected "Islamic
terrorists".
A strategy based on a deep "ideological restructuring" all over the world. A
transformation which yet was applied through the European black list. They tend
completely to annihilate the concept of "Legitimate resistance" and on the
bourgeoisie level "the juridical prerogatives of every country" if out of IBīs
interest. The immigrate, coming from areas where greater is IBīs oppression
(direct or not through its local servants) is obviously bearer of his/her
experience, of the clash in his/her country of origin, and with this, sometimes,
even of his/her social relationships. This is enough, into a world stretched out
towards bourgeoisieīs peace, through the war to terrorism, to be a "danger" for
the IB and a "problem" for its opportunism.
The choice is then based on a very simple question: to grant the last
international bourgeoisie right or to maintain he present political and social
system, preventing every form of unsteadiness. This is a question which has got
some importance for the struggle against the counter-revolutionary strategy.
What does this determine? That those countries which collaborate to maintain the
social political system, assume the right to let the others take part in their
struggle against their internal enemy.
And the immigrants which claim their right to struggle, which escape from
repression, in these countries will not have acknowledged their condition, but
they will be imprisoned as "terrorists" or expulsed.
The same treatment will not be kept for those which "fight against the enemies
of capitalism and democracy", which are welcomed and financed for their "cause".
The Cuban example teaches in this sense.

The support to anti-immigration policies means benefits for those countries
which will support these policies (see what recently happened in Libya).
In the C4 debate is considered this aspect stating that "...a first reward could
be made up by the raising of privileged shares reserved to legal emigrants:
Italy is by fact promoter of that initiative raising, in 2004, its privileged
share of legal emigrants to 20.500 unities (itīs foreseen a growth of 3.000
Tunisians and 2.500 Moroccans). Then, we have to observe some important things
like cooperation agreements, united training of Mediterranean countriesī police,
permissions for seasonal workers, etc.".
There are many examples. The Italian government in August signed an agreement
with the Libyan government about the control of clandestine immigration;
agreements with Libya yet were pointed out into EUīs documents, forecasting
trainings and police cooperation, furnishing of means and equipments.
Other European countries signed agreements with Morocco, both for the
readmission and for cooperation on borders. The EU created a group into the Euro
- Mediterranean Partnership to define better instruments for police cooperation
and judicial homogeneity, and systems of electronic identification.
Joined operations between Italian and Tunisian police yet are in act to oppose
immigration.
Itīs clear how much repression against immigration and agreements are functional
to a more great police and military cooperation on a general level. Beyond
financing projects for Euro - Mediterranean integration, have been instituted
specific programs.
The MEDA JHA II program has got the aim to give sources to implement cooperation
and to face the problems linked to immigration and "criminal" organizations. Its
aims are the joined control of borders and flows, the struggle against "criminal
and terrorist" organizations even through the possibility to stop the flow of
financing, the homogeneity of the juridical system and the judicial cooperation
against trans-national organizations.
In the next weeks there will be many appointments among European institutions to
find a common understanding towards immigration. From the Summit of the European
Council at the beginning of November, to informal meetings among Justice and
Interiors Ministers.
It seems that few is understood by those who have got to oppose these policies.
Itīs necessary to make a step forward, to understand the existence of a
proletariat with international trait which has got to find its identity. That is
a process with a natural development inside the increasing contradiction, but
which needs to find real ground of re-composition and clash unity which can
allow to prevent or limit internal and external counter-revolutionary actions.
In this moment we think that is important to support the immigrants which, into
a scenery of war to terrorism, suffer the weight of repression. And to single
out as privileged referent in the anti-war opposition that part of metropolitan
proletariat forced to "migrate" on the base of imperialist robbery policies.
Probably, with the practice we will be able to make a step forward towards the
re-composition of a metropolitan proletarian inside whom the immigrants are
surely a basic part.